Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Vermont Democrat, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pitched the idea last week during a speech at Georgetown University, saying the commission would not pursue criminal indictments but would launch a fact-finding mission to "learn the truth" about the Bush years.

He said the commission would strike the "middle ground" between those who want to prosecute Bush officials for alleged violations of civil liberties and the politicization of the Justice Department and those who want to resist any inquiries into the past eight years. Leahy has since launched an online petition that has garnered more than 26,000 signatures.

26,000 whole signatures? I seem to recall a petition I signed against the "stimulus" package he just voted for that had almost 500,000 signatures. That didn't matter to the Senator, so I have difficulty believing that a petition with a paltry 26K signatures would sway him.

Some Democrats say the proposal is no good because it doesn't go far enough. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island said officials should not be "afraid" to use the Department of Justice to investigate torture allegations and punish anyone who broke the law.

"I don't know if we require a formal new commission to do that," Reed told MSNBC.

Bob Fertik, co-founder of Democrats.com, wrote on his Web site: "I truly do not understand the distinct minority of 'liberals' who would rather 'learn the truth' about George Bush's most heinous crimes than prosecute them. And when I read the 'arguments' for a 'Truth Commission,' all I see are fallacies."

These people still can't get past "Bush Lied, People Died," and "No Blood For Oil." In an extraordinary time, and extraordinary man stepped up and made our country safer. He was the right president for the situation. He made some poor choices here and there (especially towards the end), but even Democrats were glad Gore or Kerry didn't win.

Leahy said the commission could look at matters ranging from the firings of U.S. attorneys, interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects and the authorization of warrantless wiretapping.

A poll conducted last week by USA Today/Gallup found that nearly two-thirds of Americans polled want some kind of investigation into whether the Bush administration allowed terrorism suspects to be tortured. But they were split on what form that investigation should take.

Thirty-eight percent said a criminal investigation would be best; 24 percent called for an independent panel. Thirty-four percent said neither option should be pursued.

What's funny about the poll is that even gallup.com says there's no mandate for a commission. They did have a pretty good breakdown of the percentages of who wants what:

What they didn't have was a breakdown of how many republicans or democrats they talked to. No sampling data. The closest they had was this:

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,027 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Of course, Sen Russ Feingold came to Leahy's defense saying:

"Getting all the facts out about what happened over the last eight years is a crucial part of restoring the rule of law," Feingold said. "There needs to be accountability for wrongdoing by the Bush administration, including the illegal warrantless wiretapping and interrogation programs. We cannot simply sweep these assaults on the rule of law under the rug."

Of course not. Even if they were allowed under the fisa courts, or allowed in the patriot act, that's no excuse. Bush was evil! He tricked us in to voting for these things!

In an interesting twist, Obama has actually been cold to the idea of investigating, but he has used his typical language that can be later changed to meet the current trend.

But other Democrats, including President Obama, have suggested that an investigation of the Bush administration would be too divisive. Obama declined to endorse the idea of a "truth commission" at his prime-time press conference last week.

"My view is also that nobody's above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen, but that generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards," Obama said.

So if someone is obviously guilty, we can give them a fair trial, then hang them. The purpose of the commission is to determine that guilt in the eyes of the press, before any trials begin. I know that he understands that. His statement is designed to relax opponents of the commission so there will be less push back when it starts showing up for votes. "Look, we don't want to persecu...prosecute anyone, we just want to know what really happened in the Bush white house."

So before you let your guard down, remember that any time someone calls it a "truth" whatever, what they want is not "THE truth," but "MY truth."

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The founder of a U.S. Muslim television network has been arrested and charged with murdering his wife by beheading her, the network's Web site and local media reported.

Muzzammil Hassan, founder and CEO of Buffalo, N.Y.-based Bridges TV which launched in 2004 with a mission to show Muslims in a more positive light, was charged after reporting the death of his wife, Aasiya Hassan, 37, on Thursday night.

This guy wins the "unclear on the concept" award for this week. A man dedicated to portraying muslims in a more positive light kills his wife...by beheading her...because she filed for divorce.

Authorities said Aasiya Hassan, with whom Hassan had two children, had recently filed for divorce and had an order of protection mandating that he leave their home as of February 6....

"There had been problems before and there had been prior incidents of physical abuse," Corey Hogan, whose law firm Hogan Willig represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding, told the newspaper.

{emphasis mine}I guess this would have been embarrassing for him, so he had to make it right. And by make it right I mean kill her. Allegedly. Yeah. Allegedly.

Regardless of what you think of muslims, this hurts the image a bit. I bet CAIR comes to his rescue. After all, beating and beheading your wife is part of the husbandly duties in the Koran and therefore a freedom of religion thing, right?

This kind of thing really makes me sick. It's just the latest in what is quickly becoming a string of "honorkillings" here in the US.

Monday, February 16, 2009

It goes over politics and the responsibilities of gun ownership in this country, including the possibility of having to use our guns against a military force here in our own hometowns. God forbid it every come to that, and I believe we still have a chance to pull back from that brink,

No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry is disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed."

The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed.

The Founders understood this.

So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived.

Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril.

Until they do, American gunowners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all firearms," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers are quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.

This is an outstanding essay, and it puts many things into words that I haven't been able to say. Go read it, then go read "On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs." The day may come, sooner than you may think, that you must decide which one you are.

Thousands of kids detailed their hopes and expectations for President Barack Obama in letters and drawings as part of a worldwide project, with 150 chosen for a free e-book being released on Presidents Day.

The "Dear Mr. President" project was a joint effort between the National Education Association and kidthing.com, which is putting out the book for use with its downloadable media player. A special hardcopy edition of the book will be sent to the White House for Obama, who has done wonders to bring the office of the presidency to life for young people.

The letters were written in January amid Obama-mania at inauguration time as schools scrambled to bus kids to special viewing events and come up with computer screens and TVs for them to watch in classrooms and auditoriums.

Kids ages 5-12 were eligible to participate. Submissions flooded kidthing, including some from other nations.

Lawrence Hitchcock, chief executive officer of the Web site, said more than 4,500 letters were considered for the book on a heart-wrenching range of topics that don't stop at an end to the war and climate change.

While I refuse to download their free player to watch this drivel, there were several of them in this story, including:

Anthony Pape, 10, of Du Bois, Pa., offered: "I hope that we will have no war ever again. I mean why are we fighting why can't we all be friends."

Because if we quit fighting the people that hate us, they'll quit hating us.

"I would appreciate it if you would try to make this a greener planet and try to bring home the troops and end the war," the fifth-grader wrote. "I am very luckey because I am not part of a military family, but it saddens me to hear about all the people who die in Iraque and know that somewhere In the world people are greiving over a lost family member."

Because spelling isn't a requirement to hate the military and all it stands for.

"Please change the immigration laws so my dad can come back from Mexico."

Because we should reward non-citizens who break our laws.

"I hope Mr. Barack Obama will one day create a holiday for children from around the world. I feel very proud because I know he'll be able to make a change in the country and we'll be a lot more happier. I think he should make people feel more welcome, people who don't really get along with other people."

Why don't we just follow the EU's (or California's) lead here and allow our country to be overrun by illegals, give them benefits and make sure that they have more rights then the actual citizens. and let's make sure to invite people in who hate us. And then we can take the French example and have 32 hour weeks with 2 months vacation.

"Make fires and earthquakes not exist. Make no tornadoes or any of those things that break things."

Another child drew Obama as the "new sunrise of America." One made Earth and labeled it "Obamaland," and still another created the president's face as half dark and half light skin tones with the words: "United We Are One."

Sasha's drawing is an all-green globe. Her enthusiasm for Obama and his ability to get the job done speaks volumes: "I just think he's really, really awesome."

The earth is now named Obamaland. I guess if you listened to the reaction from Europe and the UN when he was elected, we could probably go that way.

I wonder if they had any kids that said things like, "Don't raise my daddy's taxes," or, "Please make muslims stop killing people." Probably not, because that's not the kind of thing that some teachers tell their students.

If you teach children that empathy is the only important thing, they will grow up unprepared for the real world. You know, the one where people teach their children to blow themselves up for Allah. Children have wonderful empathy but no experience to temper that empathy. It is a good thing to feel for other people and want the best for everyone, but someday you have to realize that it's not possible. Some people don't want what's best, some people will always hate you and what you stand for, and the world will never be completely covered by moss.

Although Obama should be able to make it rain candy. That would be cool.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

In a struggle lasting several weeks, lawmakers in the two political parties both emphasized they wanted to pass legislation to revitalize the economy and ease frozen credit markets. But the plan that the administration and its allies eventually came up drew the support of only three Republicans in Congress — moderate Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Time to vote them out of office. The AP doesn't mention the 11 Democrats in the house that voted against the bill, jut the Republicrats that voted for it.

The AP mentions about $100 billion of the spending:

The legislation, among the costliest ever considered in Congress, provides billions of dollars to aid victims of the recession through unemployment benefits, food stamps, medical care, job retraining and more. Tens of billions are ticketed for the states to offset cuts they might otherwise have to make in aid to schools and local governments, and there is more than $48 billion for transportation projects such as road and bridge construction, mass transit and high-speed rail.

Democrats said the bill's tax cuts would help 95 percent of all Americans, much of the relief in the form of a break of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples. At the insistence of the White House, people who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes are eligible, an attempt to offset the payroll taxes they pay.

After breaking down all of the "good" stuff this bill is supposed to do, the AP somehow fails to account for the other $650 Billion which goes to things like:

There's an excellent graphic at Washingtonpost.com that breaks down the bill's spending. Even the Wall Street Journal thinks it is out of control. Some of these things might be useful, but put them in their own bills and let their merits be debated. Don't drop a 1071 page bill on people's desks in the afternoon and vote the next day. Where's the "new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review."

The problem is that it won't really do much and may actually harm the economy's growth. The AP says that the CBO criticizes the one provision that shelters the top money earners:

In a bow to political reality, lawmakers included $70 billion to shelter upper middle-class and wealthier taxpayers from an income tax increase that would otherwise hit them, a provision that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would do relatively little to create jobs.

But that's a little white lie. The CBO did criticize something. The ENTIRE bill:

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

{emphasis mine}

You know why, right? Even through the CBO is staffed with Demococrats, they're still economists, and they understand how money works. They also said that although it may create jobs initially, it would have no effect on the longer term.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

So basically, what we have is a huge spending bill that will put our grandchildren in debt, and it will only help (a tiny little bit) for a couple of years, then will start dragging us down even further.

Good job Democrats. If Obama had any honor, and if this was more about stimulating the economy and less about winning, then Obama would send it back and remind Congress that he promised to ban pork from this bill. How soon the press (and the President) forgets.

Is Barack proud of you?

On Sheepdogs

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

Rules on my Soapbox

I would love to hear your opinion, so feel free to comment all you want. I love a good debate.

All of my posts and comments are exclusively my opinion. All quoted material or images will be given proper attribution. If I miss someone, please let me know. All reader comments are owned by the commenter.

You are also welcome to quote me or link to me all you want. As long as you give the proper attribution.